The case involved the City of Birmingham's attempt to annex territory in Pinson Valley through an election under Alabama statutes. After the election initially defeated the annexation but was contested and overturned in probate court, the circuit court set aside the election due to multiple errors, including gerrymandering of boundaries. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, holding that Birmingham's practice of drawing boundaries to include favorable voters and exclude opponents created unreasonable islands or enclaves of non-voters, violating the reasonableness test for annexations and constitutional protections.
The case involved a dispute over possession of a mobile home financed through a retail installment contract with Third National Bank and a counterclaim by the buyers, the Gigandets, seeking a refund of payments made. The buyers had ceased payments due to alleged defects, notified the manufacturer and bank of their intent to revoke acceptance under the UCC, and vacated the home, but the bank sued in detinue after the buyers retained control. The trial court ruled for the bank on both the detinue claim and the counterclaim, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the buyers did not justifiably revoke acceptance because their post-notice use of the home was inconsistent with cancellation, notice may not have been timely, there was no evidence of substantial impairment of value from the defects, and they refused the bank's repair attempts.
This case involved a licensed real estate broker, William K. Nicrosi, who was hired verbally by First Southern Federal Savings and Loan Association to locate and negotiate the purchase of new corporate quarters in Montgomery. Nicrosi helped secure the Greystone Hotel building for $485,000 and later sued for the reasonable value of his services, seeking $48,500; the trial court awarded him $32,095. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment, holding that the verdict was supported by credible and substantial evidence and applying the presumption that the trial court's denial of a new trial strengthened the correctness of the award. The court reviewed only the evidence favorable to the verdict and found no basis to overturn it under established standards for sufficiency of evidence.
The case concerns a petition by Billy Ray Cooper for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review and revise a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Cooper v. State, 57 Ala. App. ___, 331 So.2d 752. The court denied the petition without further review. Four justices concurred in the denial. No additional reasoning or facts about the underlying criminal matter are provided in the opinion.
The case involved a Jefferson County employee, Freeman, who sought additional longevity pay for his prior years of service with the county and the City of Homewood after transfers between the two under Personnel Board rules. The trial court denied the claim, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the county commission's 1973 resolution limited longevity calculations to uninterrupted full-time service with Jefferson County, and Freeman's transfers created an interruption not covered by the provision. Although other employment benefits credited his prior service, the personnel rules did not address longevity, so there was no conflict, and the county's consistent administrative practice supported excluding interrupted service.
This case involved the revocation of Cook's driver's license by the Director of Public Safety after a municipal court record indicated a conviction for driving while intoxicated, despite later corrective records showing a conviction only for possession of an automobile while intoxicated. The trial court granted Cook an injunction ordering return of the license and excluded evidence offered by the State about the municipal court's routine practice of altering DWI records, a decision affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of the court's routine practice was admissible because it met the criteria of regularity and similarity, allowing inferences about the accuracy of the original record. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling on evidence admissibility.